No she wasn't. Do you even understand Canadian law? The age of consent is 14, if the other partner is within 5 years of age. Her classmates at the party would have been, presumably, within 5 years of age.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person."
Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party ('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look, I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use logic in our discussions.
Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g. Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5 days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury.
But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of:
"She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up."
Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.
Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.
In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.
She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence.
Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent is a different question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know what witness statements may have indicated.
I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.
Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html "The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person."
Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party ('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look, I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use logic in our discussions.
Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g. Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5 days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."